There are 24182 comments on the
Psychology Today
story from Apr 25, 2012, titled Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038.
In it, Psychology Today reports that:

My blog posts on religion have attracted a lot of controversy. Religious people are annoyed by my claim that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

<quoted text>I entirely disagree.To suggest that Islamic Banks are more honest or better run than Western ones is simply wrong. Their banking system avoiods usury in a different way, that's all.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usuryUsury is only a matter of excessive or illegal interest, nothing more.The interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with the banking systems of West and those which are thought (correctly or not) to be 'Sharia compliant'.(I doubt if Iraq even had a Sharia compliant banking system!)Whether one believes in Sharia law or not, usury is equally wrong in either system.

Forget any religions, they are backward in every way. 50% of the population are subdued second class women. This is middle age in our time! In the nuclear age this means very backward conditions. Capitalism is responsible for this society. All religions are just responsible for this stone age conditions!

<quoted text>Ans.Yeah I know Karl Marx is recent so people remember his name.After a couple of centuries, you have to search him in old booksSo many "Karl Marx s" have come and perished in past 3000 years.Yet Moses, jesus and Prophet Mohammad are honored by Billions and Millions of people after all these centuries.I know how you are "hurt" by the permanent nature of their position.You can pass your "subjective comments" and they have little value, neither here nor there.

Millions or billions are forced to have little or no education. The more they get educated, the little are they honoring such Moses, jesus or mohammed. They go over to science and Karl Marx is a modern man!

Indeed it is possible that Muhammad was a random soldier or general war hero who Al Fuckface whatever crafted a biblical-ish legend around. Maybe his family member, friend or lover.

This would explain why nobody outside the Quran knew of him. Or Muhammad being a wildly used name in the area he could have just been a representation of all the Muhammads who were blood thirsty animal soldiers at the time. An homage so to speak of the Arab warrior.

EdSed wrote:

<quoted text>We need the usual, historical proof as required for any other figure...From:http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_isl..."It is notoriously difficult to know anything for sure about the founder of a world religion. Just as one shrine after the other obliterates the contours of the localities in which he was active, so one doctrine after another reshapes him as a figure for veneration and imitation for a vast number of people in times and places that he never knew."And Mohammed didn't personally found the religion. The religious theology developed after his death. Islam is apparently based on a historical figure and probably some sort of war-leader.The Jesus depicted in the Bible was possibly something of a composite figure. Even less seems to be known for sure about the Quran's version of Mohammed. The original sources we have on them were generally created long after these figures died. Neither figure seems to have been as important during their lifetimes as their political uses were after their deaths.<quoted text>I think I may have done at some stage. Like many historians who refer to famous religious prophets like Jesus and Mohammed, he often referred to what people of the time believed to be true, whether their belief was correct or entirely erroneous.<quoted text>Perhaps so idiotic that these points have never occurred to them?Perhaps so idiotic that they are confident that they now know essentially what these figures said during their lifetimes,(as opposed to modern theological dogma on the subject)?Perhaps so idiotic that they think not a single word has been changed in the Quran since the 7th Century?Perhaps even so idiotic that they seriously believe someone like Jesus or Mohammed were sent to Earth as messengers from an Abrahamic god(s)?

I usually criticise islam and religion generally here, but thought for the sake of balance and interest i'd post an alternative view. One of the reasons for the so called war on terror is the little know about by the public and not discussed on mainstream media. It is usury. The middle eastern countries do not lend or receive money at interest due to its prohibition in the quran. This was the same in christianity up unitl the reformation in the 16th century. Previous to them usury had been viewed as a mortal sin and would risk eternal punishment in hell. Therefore lending money at interest at the middle ages was only practised by Jews. They were dispised for this by all European countries and were often expelled en mass from country to country.

Today we live in a globalised debt-based banking system. The only countries resisting this system, just happen to be the same ones targeted for liberation and regime change by the US and its allies. A conincidence, I think not. This is what liberation by the west brings to islamic countries, a system of perpetual and exponentially growing debts. Lucky them :)

Ans.

I think I have posted a details reply to you on the thread Why Atheism will overcome religion.

Indeed it is possible that Muhammad was a random soldier or general war hero who Al Fuckface whatever crafted a biblical-ish legend around. Maybe his family member, friend or lover.This would explain why nobody outside the Quran knew of him. Or Muhammad being a wildly used name in the area he could have just been a representation of all the Muhammads who were blood thirsty animal soldiers at the time. An homage so to speak of the Arab warrior.<quoted text>

That is quite interesting. I had no idea Muhammad-the-pedophile was just another figment.

But it stands to reason he was just as fictional as Jewsus.

Which brings up a couple of good points. Since this child molester was fictional?

1) why did they depict him as a child rapist? 2) why did they also depict him as illiterate?

You'd have thunk, since they were cobbling it together out of essentially fairy-tales, that they'd have made him more...

At that time remember marrying children and thighing them was considered normal in that society. Well not much has changed in that part if the world.

Many Arab soldiers then and now were illiterate so that helped connect the uneducated masses to his myth.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>That is quite interesting. I had no idea Muhammad-the-pedophile was just another figment.But it stands to reason he was just as fictional as Jewsus.Which brings up a couple of good points. Since this child molester was fictional?1) why did they depict him as a child rapist?2) why did they also depict him as illiterate?You'd have thunk, since they were cobbling it together out of essentially fairy-tales, that they'd have made him more...... respectable.I mean, really?

At that time remember marrying children and thighing them was considered normal in that society. Well not much has changed in that part if the world.Many Arab soldiers then and now were illiterate so that helped connect the uneducated masses to his myth.<quoted text>

Yes, I get all that-- but, since they were making sh7t up? Why not go for a higher standard?

... meh.

I'll never understand these people I suppose-- it probably stems from me preferring strict honesty over all else.

Because they weren't trying to create a myth for educated people. They were aiming for a group of uneducated, illiterate, barbaric child molesters.

You gotta know your client base. You think those animals would have responded to a well rounded message of peace and acceptance? Lol!

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, I get all that-- but, since they were making sh7t up? Why not go for a higher standard?... meh.I'll never understand these people I suppose-- it probably stems from me preferring strict honesty over all else.Even to myself.

Because they weren't trying to create a myth for educated people. They were aiming for a group of uneducated, illiterate, barbaric child molesters.You gotta know your client base. You think those animals would have responded to a well rounded message of peace and acceptance? Lol!<quoted text>

<quoted text>That is quite interesting. I had no idea Muhammad-the-pedophile was just another figment.But it stands to reason he was just as fictional as Jewsus.Which brings up a couple of good points. Since this child molester was fictional?1) why did they depict him as a child rapist?2) why did they also depict him as illiterate?You'd have thunk, since they were cobbling it together out of essentially fairy-tales, that they'd have made him more...... respectable.I mean, really?

You say that Jesus and Mohammed are fictional.So the claims you spew against them must be fictional as well?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.